The application of crime scene examination and criminalistics forensic intelligence in the fight against Major crime and Terrorism.

What are criminalistics forensics? “Criminalistics can be defined as the application of scientific methods to the recognition, collection, identification, and comparison of physical evidence generated by criminal or illegal civil activity. It also involves the reconstruction of such events by evaluation of the physical evidence and the crime scene.”

What is forensic Intelligence? “Forensic intelligence refers to several ‘treatments’ of data. As a concept, it refers to the structured assimilation of forensic data (i.e. crime scene evidence such as DNA, fingerprint, ballistics, and trace evidence) within a cross-referenced and indexed dataset. This dataset may be subjected to rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis to identify meaningful patterns of criminal enterprise. Such data analysis is held to be strategic insofar as it informs several elements of policing, including: (i) intelligence-led operations, (ii) preventative policing, and (iii) resource allocation.” (Legrand & Vogel, 2012)

The “CSI effect” has been responsible for bringing criminalistics forensics to the fore of the public consciousness, raising interest in this particular form of forensics, unfortunately this interest has had some negative connotations, “most notably, some researchers and pundits suggest that forensic dramas perpetuate an impossibly high standard of forensic science, resulting in acquittals of guilty parties.” (Workewych & Chin, 2016)

CSI is nothing new with this form of forensic science having been in use for well over a hundred years. From its early days, there has been a realisation that the harvesting of forensic evidence and the application of forensic sciences have a critical role to play in criminal investigations, prosecutions in courts of law, and trials of terrorism cases.

In the Chicago Haymarket Square in 1886 a large crowd gathered to protest, a group of Anarchists had arranged a show of solidarity. They were demanding change, and if necessary, violent revolt, in order to establish a new order. The protest did indeed turn violent, and the Police rallied to break up the protest. During this time someone within the crowd threw a homemade bomb, the resultant explosion killing seven police officers and an unknown number of civilians.

In an attempt to identify the perpetrator's, scientists, Haines and Delafontaine separately examined several fragments of the bomb, recovered from deceased police officers, and compared them with intact bombs recovered from suspects Lingg and Spies. By a matter of comparing the chemical composition of the devices, Haines and Delafontaine concluded the devices were similar enough in chemical composition to have originated from Lingg and Spies. Even though the actual person who threw the bomb was never identified, Lingg and Spies were convicted and sentenced to death.

Since that time, the examination of terrorist-related crime scenes has, in many environments, become more complex and regulated in order to fulfil legal requirements and ensure safe sentencing. "In criminal cases, the ultimate purpose of forensic evidence is to assist the court in deciding upon the guilt or otherwise of those brought before it. Nonetheless, forensic science has other important functions to fulfil well before any such proceedings are in view and usually starting with the police investigation. This aspect is reflected in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, 46 in which the Home Office said that the main functions of the Forensic Science Service were 47 "to provide resources to assist the police in the investigation and detection of crime and to assist the courts in the administration of justice". (Stockdale & Walker, 1995). Forensic evidence and science have implications at every stage of the events as well as influencing future strategy, policy and guidelines.

Forensic evidence should fulfil numerous roles in an investigation, including:

1. Providing supportive evidence to ascertain a crime has been committed.

2. Determine a sequence of events or elements of a crime.

3. Provide evidence of contact between suspect(s), the victim(s), weapons and the crime scene.

4. Establish those present and possibly the identity of persons associated with a crime.

5. Prove or disprove a person’s involvement in a crime.

6. Corroborate statements from victims and witnesses.

The use of forensic evidence may not always be primarily concerned with proving guilt or innocents. The collection and use of forensic intelligence, both overt and covert, can fulfil the roles stated above, but also provide the valuable information required to assist in an investigation, plan tactics for future forensic operations, and even disrupt terrorists before an attack. “Yet while the concept of forensic intelligence has caught the attention of a number of policing agencies around the world, it has yet to become a mainstream undertaking. In part this is an artefact of a pragmatic policing culture that only institutes new practices based on demonstrable, research and practice-based effectiveness.” (Legrand & Vogel, 2012)

While criminalistics forensic intelligence could be used to convict terrorist suspects, it may be that the intelligence itself would not be admissible in a court due to its method of collection or it would not be disclosed as it would divulge the techniques or sources used. In these cases, the author will argue, that criminalistics forensic intelligence should be used as a means to assist in identifying possible suspects, materials, locations and techniques used by terrorists; therefore, positively supporting investigators and allowing informed and directed investigations to be carried out with specific criteria.

Criminalistics forensic intelligence then contributes to the more direct, overt investigations leading to gathering evidence to fulfil prosecution standards in such a way that it can be presented to the courts.

The exploration of the contribution of forensic intelligence will include both overt and covert forensic methods, and tools will draw on examples from recent terrorist incidents. However, the documented evidence for the use of covert methods may be limited due to the sensitive nature of the information.

Bibliography

Legrand, T., & Vogel, L. (2012, January). Forensic Intelligence. ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing nd Security.

Stockdale, R., & Walker, C. (1995). Forensic Evidence and Terrorist Trials in the United Kingdom. Cambridge Law Journal, 69-99.

Workewych, L., & Chin, a. (2016, July). The Crime Scene Investigation Effect. Retrieved from Oxford Handbooks Online: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com